Category Archives: euthanasia

Oregon legislature approves bill to allow starving the mentally ill to death

Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:01:10 +0000


The state of Oregon has gone down the proverbial slippery slope, from legalizing assisted suicide to active euthanasia of people without their consent.

On Feb. 27, 2018, Oregon’s state Senate passed House Bill 4135 — a bill that paves the way for healthcare representatives to remove access to food and water for Oregonians with dementia and Alzheimer’s who are not dying, effectively starving them to death.

On February 16, Oregon’s House passed HB 4135, in a party line 35(D) vs. 25 (R) vote.

The chief sponsors of the bill are all Democrats — the openly lesbian House Speaker Rep. Tina Kotek (D) and Senators Floyd Kozanski (D) and Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (D).

Oregon Right to Life explains:

HB 4135 is purported to just be a bill that makes technical changes to the current statutory advance directive form found in ORS 127.531. However, over the last 25 years, Oregonians at the end-of-life stage have been protected by the current advance directive. Removing it from statute has legal consequences.

If HB 4135 is passed a person who appoints a healthcare representative, but makes no decisions regarding end of life care, would be granting his or her healthcare representative the power to make a life ending decision for the principal. They would have the power to remove access to food and water, even when the principal is not in one of the four statutorily defined end of life situations, and even if this is not the will of the principal.

Indeed, a supporter of HB 4135, Bill Harris, had gone to court in order to starve his wife who has dementia. He testified that he supports HB 4135 because he was unable to starve his wife under current law.

Oregon state Rep. Bill Kennemer (R) said:

“The advance directive was put into Oregon statute back in 1993. I was then a state senator when a very well vetted bill was thoroughly discussed and passed. I worked hard to ensure the advance directive was in statute. If it were to be removed from statute, I fear the legal protections we carefully placed there could be jeopardized, potentially harming end of life decisions for vulnerable patients.”

The bill now goes to, Kate Brown (D), Oregon’s openly bisexual governor who is not pro-life. To ask Governor Brown to veto the bill, please click here.

Still think there’s no difference between the Democrat and Republican parties?

H/t LifeNews


Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It's okay to rape the mentally disabled

Do you know someone who’s mentally disabled?
If so, you should know that celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer says it’s okay for them to be raped.

Peter Singer

Peter Singer, 70, is an Australian moral philosopher who is widely celebrated and recognized with:

  • The Order of Australia from the Australian government “for achievement or meritorious service”.
  • An endowed Ira W. DeCamp professorship at Princeton University.
  • A Laureate professorship at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

Singer specializes in applied ethics from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He calls his brand of ethics hedonistic utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the Bentham principle of “the greatest good of the greatest number”. Hedonistic utilitarianism is the belief that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, as defined in terms of the happiness and well-being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals. Hedonistic utilitarianism considers all interests — those of humans and nonhuman animals — equally.
Singer’s hedonistic utilitarianism led him to espouse:

  • Reduction of world poverty via citizens of rich nations giving some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor.
  • Reduction of animal suffering via animal liberation and veganism.
  • Women’s absolute right to abort on the grounds that fetuses are not persons: they are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences.
  • Voluntary and some cases of involuntary (infanticide) euthanasia.
  • Bestiality that does not “harm” the animal and is “mutually satisfying”.
  • Infanticide of disabled newborn babies because “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” Therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” See DCG’s post here.

Singer’s latest contribution to ethics is in a New York Times op/ed he co-authored with Oxford moral philosopher Jeff McMahan, in defense of Anna Stubblefield, 45, a former professor of ethics at Rutgers University, recently convicted of sexually assaulting D.J., a 34-year-old black man with severe cerebral palsy who is non-verbal, wears a diaper, and requires assistance with common everyday tasks like bathing, eating and walking.

Although D.J. is incapable of communication, Stubblefield maintains that her use of a controversial method called “facilitated communication” enabled D.J. to express himself to her.

Note: “Facilitated communication” is a discredited technique whereby a facilitator helps a mentally disabled person to “communicate” by moving (or simply pulling) the disabled’s hand across a board showing the alphabet.

Stubblefield spent the next two years working with D.J. on his communication skills, during which time she claimed he was able to write essays and academic papers, including one which was presented at the 2010 Society for Disabilities Studies conference. She came to “love” D.J. and to believe that he loved her and wanted to have sex with her. (Daily Mail)
In May 2011, D.J. revealed his sexual relationship with Stubblefield to his brother and mother, who are his legal guardians. The family went to the police and sued Stubblefield.
In October 2015, a New Jersey jury convicted Anna Stubblefield on two counts of aggravated sexual assault on D.J., and sentenced her to 12 years in prison. The prosecution claimed that Stubblefield had exploited and raped D.J. because he is sufficiently intellectually disabled to be incapable of consenting to sex. The conviction is being appealed.
In their NYT op/ed, Singer and McMahan accuse the trial’s female judge of having prevented the defense from making a case that D.J. was a cognitively aware adult who is mentally and morally capable of consenting to sex. Singer and McMahan then argue that even if the prosecution is right and D.J. is mentally incapacitated, Stubblefield had done him no real harm in having sexual intercourse with him because D.J. is incapable of undertanding what she did. Furthermore, Stubblefield actually did D.J. “good” because he “experienced pleasure” from the sexual intercourse. The two ethicists write:

“If we assume that he is profoundly cognitively impaired … in that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent to sexual relations; indeed, he may lack the concept of consent altogether.
On the assumption that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, therefore, it seems that if Stubblefield wronged or harmed him, it must have been in a way that he is incapable of understanding and that affected his experience only pleasurably.”

As reported by Steve Weatherbe for LifeSiteNews, April 7, 2017, writing in Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson calls the ethicists’ argument one of Singer’s “most outrageous arguments yet” and that it’s Singer’s stance on the disabled that “has led some disabled people to get the not unreasonable impression that Peter Singer, perhaps the world’s most prominent ethicist, would prefer it if they died . . . . The continued presence of Peter Singer in national dialogue about disability shows just how far we have to go before people like D.J. will actually be granted their full humanity, by prosecutors and philosophers alike.”
Robinson condemns utilitarianism in general for being “meticulous and Spock-like in their deductions from premises,” which leads them to “constantly end up endorsing the moral necessity of an endless number of inhumane acts. It’s a terrible philosophy that leads to brutal and perverse conclusions and, at its worst, it turns you into Peter Singer.”
The German Nazis, too, had their brand of hedonistic utilitarianism which justified their extermination of whole groups of people, including homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped, and Jews — whom the Nazis called the bacillus race, responsible for humankind’s moral filth and degeneracy.
From “The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield,” New York Times Magazine, October 20, 2015:

“Marjorie Anna Stubblefield goes by her middle name, pronounced with an aristocratic a, as in the word ‘‘nirvana.’’ Her last name is her former husband’s. Years ago, she was Margie McClennen, an honors student who grew up Jewish in the nearly all-white town of Plymouth, Mich.”

Peter Singer, too, is Jewish. His parents were Austrian Jews who immigrated from Vienna to Australia, where he was born. Singer’s grandparents were less fortunate: his paternal grandparents were taken by the German Nazis to Łódź, and were never heard from again; his maternal grandfather died in the Theresienstadt concentration camp.
But the irony of what Stubblefield did to D.J. and the similarities of Singer’s brand of ethics with Nazism evidently is lost on the esteemed ethicist.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Bioethicists: Conscientious objectors to euthanasia and abortion should be banned from medical schools

Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:27:34 +0000


Two bioethicists — UK professor Julian Savulescu and Canadian professor Udo Schuklenk — are urging that medical schools not admit prospective students who object to abortion and euthanasia.


Julian Savulescu is director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, UK, and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics; Udo Schuklenk is the Ontario research chair in bioethics at Canada’s Queen’s University, and editor of the journal Bioethics.

In a co-authored article titled, “Doctors Have no Right to Refuse Medical Assistance in Dying, Abortion or Contraception,” published by the journal Bioethics on Sept. 22, 2016, Savulescu and Schuklenk maintain that:

  • Patients’ have an absolute right to abortion and to euthanasia or “assisted dying”.
  • The problem is that there are doctors who conscientiously object.
  • These doctors are respected for their “integrity” and given the prerogative not be involved in providing patients with abortion, artificial contraceptives, and euthanasia.
  • Physicians who refuse to abort and euthanize should be punished or even fired.
  • Conscientious objectors should be barred from admission into medical schools.

Savulescu and Schuklenk write in the “Abstract” of their article:

“[T]here should be better protections for patients from doctors’ personal values and there should be more severe restrictions on the right to conscientious objection, particularly in relation to assisted dying. We argue that eligible patients could be guaranteed access to medical services that are subject to conscientious objections by: (1) removing a right to conscientious objection; (2) selecting candidates into relevant medical specialities or general practice who do not have objections; (3) demonopolizing the provision of these services away from the medical profession.

Some points made in their journal article by these two toxic men who actually pretend they are bioethicists:

(1) Anti-Christian:

Without naming it, Savulescu and Schuklenk blame Christianity — which they refer to only as “organized religion” — for the objection to abortion and euthanasia. As they put it:

“The more religious a society is, the more religious values are imposed on people. Many of the conscientious objection protections we are grappling with today were written into constitutional arrangements in times gone by when the influence of churches was significantly more powerful than it is today. In strongly Christian societies, like Ireland, abortion remains illegal…. [Atheists] Richard Dawkins got it right, when he noted, ‘religion is not simply vicars giving tea parties. There are evil consequences.’”

(2) Doctors should be denied the right to be a conscientious objector to abortion, euthanasia, and artificial contraception:

“Enlightened, progressive secular countries like Sweden, have labour laws in line with our arguments. Sweden provides no legal right of employees to conscientious objection. Employees could be sacked for failing to provide legal services under labour law. The same holds true, for instance, for Finland…. These countries have resolutely prioritised patient access to care over the protection of doctors’ idiosyncratic moral convictions with regard to these services. Other countries ought to follow Sweden and Finland…. Conscientious refusal to provide contraception is common and mistakenly supported by medical boards and medical associations…. For religious GPs, obstetricians and pharmacists to refuse to provide the oral contraceptive pill is simply unprofessional. There is no requirement for a healthcare system to accommodate unprofessional behaviour…. If a professional norm [conscientious objection] is no longer fit for purpose, it should be changed.”

(3) Doctors who are conscientious objectors should be punished or perhaps fired:

“Doctors who did behave like this would be acting with a gross lack of professionalism and would therefore be subject to censure and appropriate remedies by their professional, statutory bodies…. [I]f society thinks contraception, abortion and assistance in dying are important, it should select people prepared to do them, not people whose values preclude them from participating. Equally, people not prepared to participate in such expected courses of action should not join professions tasked by society with the provision of such services.”

(4) Medical schools should deny admission to conscientious objectors:

“Therefore, even if we did not change the system for those already practising medicine, given that there is an oversupply of people capable and willing to become medical professionals, we should select those willing to provide the full scope of professional services, and those who are most capable. Medical schools and training programmes should carefully outline the nature of the job and screen for conscientious objection where it is relevant to job performance. Requirements of the job should be written into the contract.

(5) Abolish medical doctors’ monopoly on medical care by licensing non-physicians to perform abortion and euthanasia:

“Finally, if conscientious objection continues to be tolerated in medicine and results in treatment denial, alternative ways of guaranteeing reasonable and fair access to these goods ought to be provided. One way of doing this is to de-monopolize the provision of the relevant service. If the quality of such a service could match that provided by medical professionals, and sufficient supply could be ensured, then this would be a viable alternative. This would require new training, selection, regulatory and oversight procedures, which would be cumbersome and expensive. But there is no reason why only doctors could competently provide, for example, contraception, abortion or assisted dying services.”

(6) Conscientious objector doctors are like the Nazis:

“Part of the force behind respecting conscientious objection is a common commitment to ethical relativism: if that is what someone believes, then they are right to believe it, and that alone makes it a kind of truth…. But ethical relativism is practically ethical nihilism. If one accepted ethical relativism, the holocaust was, from the Nazi’s perspective, right.”

Lastly, I find it curious that Savulescu and Schuklenk, with degrees in medicine, cannot distinguish between “reign” and “rein”.

To “reign” is to be a sovereign or monarch; to “rein” is to curb. In their article, Savulescu and Schuklenk write that secular doctors who are conscientious objectors “ought to reign in their values too”.

Tsk, tsk.

H/t National Post

To sign a petition to support the Life at Conception Act, click here.


Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Netherlands joins growing list of countries with presumed consent for organ donation

Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:07:39 +0000


There’s an increasing drumbeat for us to donate our organs.

Two days ago, the Netherlands took an important step toward increasing the number of organ donors when the lower house of parliament approved a bill for “presumed consent” of organ donation.

Doctors preparing for organ transplant (Photo by Keith Bedford/Reuters)

Doctors preparing for organ transplant (Photo by Keith Bedford/Reuters)

Organ donation is when a person allows healthy transplantable organs and tissues to be removed, either after death or while the donor is alive, and transplanted into another person.

There are two types of organ-donation consent:

  1. Explicit consent, also called “opt in” consent, refers to the donor giving explicit, direct consent through proper registration depending on the country. In the U.S., for example, many states enable you to state you’re an organ donor on your driver’s license.
  2. Presumed consent, also called “opt in,” does not need direct consent from the donor or the next of kin. Instead, it is presumed that anyone who has not explicitly refused is a donor.

In the case of the Netherlands, as reported by RT, on September 13, 2016, a “yes, unless” bill for presumed consent was narrowly approved by a 75-74 vote in the lower house of parliament. If approved by the upper house and passed into law, every single Dutch citizen would be put on the organ donation list, unless they explicitly request otherwise.

Obviously, the presumed consent method harvests more organ donation. As an example, Germany, which uses an opt-in explicit consent system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12%, whereas nearby Austria, a country with a very similar culture, uses an opt-out presumed consent system and thus has a consent rate of 99.98%.

Currently, the United States and the United Kingdom require explicit consent for organ donation, but there’s a movement to change it to presumed consent. Not all of the UK operates on explicit consent: In December 2015, Wales switched to presumed consent — a move that was expected to increase the amount of donors by 25%. Under the new policy, people over the age of 18 who have lived in Wales for more than 12 months and die in Wales are automatically considered organ donors, unless they have specifically opted out.

There is a lucrative international market for transplantable organs. In the case of China, we have compelling evidence and testimonies  that government officials collude with hospitals to provide on-order transplantable organs from executed prisoners. (See Wikipedia)

See also:



Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Don't waste your money: Hollyweird movie "Me Before You" isn't "romantic"

The Hollyweird movie, Me Before You, recently opened and is described as a “romantic drama” film. The movie is based on the novel of the same name by author Jojo Moyes, who is an English journalist and romance novelist.

Author Jojo Moyes

Author Jojo Moyes

According to Life News, the movie stars Emilia Clarke as Lou Clark, a woman who accepts a job as caregiver for young quadriplegic Will Traynor (Sam Claflin). Billed as a romantic comedy, the film shows the two falling in love and ends with Will choosing death before a life with Lou. While disability activists and most media reviewers slammed the plot, some critics (from AP to Vanity Fair) still praised and cried over the “romantic” film that they described as a “mixture of classic romantic movies of the past.”
You can read the whole movie plot (with spoilers) here at Life News.
Wikipedia describes the controversy surrounding this film: “The film has suffered a backlash from many people in the disabled community due to what they perceive as an underlying message that people with disabilities are a burden on their families and careers, and claim the film promotes the view that people are better off dead than disabled. They view the film as advocating suicide so that their loved ones can “live boldly”. The #MeBeforeEuthanasia backlash has been led by celebrities with disabilities; Liz Carr, Penny Pepper, and Cherylee Houston.
This hasn’t stopped the media from promoting this “romance” and human euthanasia story.

Life News notes the reactions of some in the media:
“As Vanity Fair critic Richard Lawson reviewed the “pleasant and sad little movie” containing “wit and style,” he argued that assisted suicide was the film’s greatest strength.”
“For Rolling Stone, movie critic Peter Travers wrote about the “four-hankie tearjerker.” While he accused the film of being a “sob story that will go down easy at the box office,” he argued that “you can’t blame audiences too much for being seduced by two shining young stars in a movie romance that hits the spot, bitter and sweet.”
“Even feminist site Bustle recommended bringing tissues to the theater. Writer Olivia Truffaut-Wong couldn’t gush enough over the film. “If you don’t leave Me Before You with red eyes and a sniffling nose, then either you hate crying in public, or you weren’t paying attention during the movie,” she began before arguing that “the movie is probably best described as a mixture of classic romantic movies of the past.”
Another Hollyweird movie I will not be seeing.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Medical facilities are killing non-terminally ill patients by withholding food & water

It’s bad enough that euthanasia of the terminally-ill is now legal in states like Oregon and California, a hospital and a hospice are deliberately killing non-terminally ill patients by withholding food and water, à la what they did to Terri Schiavo.
culture of death
The following is a June 6 email from Life Legal Defense Foundation:

Life Legal received two distressing phone calls on Sunday.
One was from the niece of an elderly woman who is in the hospital following an injury. The woman has slight dementia, but is able to communicate. The hospital decided it would no longer treat her, as care was “futile” because of the woman’s dementia. The woman’s niece tried to get a court order to keep her aunt alive, but the judge refused—and slandered the niece’s Catholic faith in the process. Yesterday, the hospital withdrew food and hydration from the woman.
Did you know that dementia is considered a terminal illness? And that food and hydration are considered “medical care” that can be withdrawn if a physician believes your condition won’t improve over time? In this case, the woman’s dementia is not severe—she still recognizes her niece and the hospital staff—yet because it will likely not get better, her doctors sentenced her to an agonizing death.
The second call was from the boyfriend of a 30-year-old woman who suffered a brain injury after she went into cardiac arrest. She is in a hospice facility that has not given her any nutrition for over a week. A few days ago, she started talking! She said that she is hungry and is asking for food. She is able to pull herself up and move her legs. She sings along to her favorite songs. Yet, the hospice refuses to feed her and is now giving her morphine because she tried to get out of bed.
We have calls out to local attorneys to help this young woman. Please pray that someone will be able to intervene tomorrow!

H/t California Catholic

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

TV star calls for children with Down’s syndrome to be put down

What a vile creature.

Talk about a pointless life...

Talk about a pointless life…

The Sun: A former  TV star has sparked outrage after posting a vile Facebook post claiming children with Down’s syndrome should be “put down”.
Ursula Presgrave, who appeared on BBC3 show The Call Centre last year, wrote: “Anyone born with down syndrome should be put down, it’s just cruel to let them lead a pointless life of a vegetable.”
The hateful status, posted on Sunday evening, received more than 1,000 comments from people calling her “vile” and “sick”.
One mum wrote: “My son has Down’s syndrome and is three but he is more of a person than you will ever be sweetheart. What goes around comes around and I hope your karma is terrible. Shame on you.”
Presgrave, from Swansea, has caused uproar on social media in the past after she posted a disgusting status about missing child Madeline McCann.
Instead of apologising for her cruel words, Presgrave responded by saying things like “attempting to give a f***” and posted pictures mocking children with Down’s syndrome.
Facebook has since removed the post.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Canadian doctors to get euthanasia kits

This December, Quebec will become the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow competent adults experiencing intolerable suffering at the end of life to request “medical aid in dying,” aka physician-assisted suicide, aka euthanasia.
Bill 52 allows doctors to administer lethal injections to mentally fit patients suffering an incurable illness who are in constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain, in an advanced state of irreversible decline. and be at the end of life.
Hippocratic Oath
Sharon Kirkey reports for National Post, Aug. 28, 2015, that Quebec doctors will soon be given standardized kits with which to end the lives of patients seeking euthanasia, along with detailed instructions as the province prepares to usher in legalized aid in dying. The euthanasia patient-killing kit will include:

  • A sedative to calm the patient
  • A drug to induce a deep coma
  • A drug to induce cardiorespiratory arrest (two sets of each drug to provide a backup in case of complications)
  • Syringes
  • Needles in different calibre sizes
  • IV tubing
  • IV solutions

The Collège des médecins du Québec has developed a new guideline for doctors unlike any in the history of Canadian medicine: a step-by-step guide to follow before, during and after administering euthanasia to killing an eligible patient, including the type of drugs to be used, the dose, the injection site and what to do in the event of complications. The guideline, developed in collaboration with the Order of Pharmacists of Quebec and the Order of Nurses of Quebec, will be available to doctors, nurses and other health professionals on a secure area of the college’s website because, according to college secretary Dr. Yves Robert, “We don’t want these recipes made too easily available to everyone.”

Robert insists, “It is clearly not euthanasia on demand. It is clearly not that.”

In February, the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the century-old Criminal Code prohibitions against “physician-assisted death.” In so doing, legal experts say the court opened the door to both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide — where the doctor writes a prescription for a life-ending overdose the patient then takes himself.
Modeled on a 3-phased formula used in the Netherlands, the Quebec guideline could become a model for all of Canada. The three steps are:

  1. First, a benzodiazepine, a type of sedative, would be injected to help control anxiety and “help calm the patient,” Robert said.
  2. Next, a barbiturate drug would be injected to induce a coma.
  3. The third step would be a neuromuscular block, a derivative of curare that acts on the respiratory muscles to cause cardio-respiratory arrest, i. e., the person’s heart and lungs will cease functioning.

People requesting euthanasia can stop the processes at any time, up until the last moment before the loss of consciousness. The whole process, from beginning to death, “would probably take something around 15 minutes,” Robert said.
See also:


Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Why you should be concerned that the largest U.S. nursing association endorsed socialist pro-euthanasia Bernie Sanders for President

On August 10, 2015, the 185,000-member National Nurses United endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) for the presidency at a “Brunch with Bernie” event at union headquarters in Oakland, California.

The National Nurses United (NNU) is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in the United States. NNU was founded in December 2009 by combining three nursing organizations (California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, United American Nurses, and Massachusetts Nurses Association) into one, for the express purpose of giving registered nurses a national voice and organizing power.

Politico writes that “The Sanders endorsement isn’t a surprise: The NNU has long been a militant outlier among labor unions. It opposed the Affordable Care Act because it wasn’t single-payer, and in 2000 its predecessor union, the California Nurses Association, endorsed Ralph Nader over Al Gore for president.”

That being said, the fact that the largest professional association of nurses in America has endorsed Sanders for the presidency should be a cause for concern to all Americans, most of whom will be hospitalized at some point in our lives, especially when we become old and feeble. By their endorsement, the National Nurses United is signaling their approval of Sanders’ political positions, which include the absolute right to abort and euthanasia

Below is a list of information I’ve compiled on Bernie Sanders. As you read it, just remember that the largest nurses’ association in America wants this man to be president.


  1. Bernie Sanders will be 74 years old on Sept. 8.
  2. Married to Jane Driscoll, his second wife, Sanders has an out-of-wedlock son, Levi, from a relationship he had between marriage #1 and marriage #2.
  3. Sanders’ father was a Jew who immigrated from Poland; his mother was born of two New York Jews. Sanders has said he is “proud to be Jewish”, but “not particularly religious.”

Political Ideology

  1. Sanders is an Independent and calls himself a “democratic socialist”. Semantics aside, Sanders is an outright socialist since his student days at the University of Chicago when he joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the official youth arm of the Socialist Party of America.
  2. Though not religious, Sanders admires Pope Francis, another socialist, for the latter’s stance on “economic issues,” referring to Bergoglio’s call for redistribution of wealth by the state and by a new global authority.

Stance on Issues

  1. Sanders is a long-time supporter of homosexual marriage, before it became fashionable. Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009.
  2. He supports Obama’s HHS mandate: Sanders wants government to force all health care insurance, including religious groups, to provide free birth control, including contraceptives that are abortifacients.
  3. If you like big government, you’ll like Sanders. He wants a Big Government On Steroids: free college tuition and an expansion of our already insolvent entitlement programs. He writes on his website: “Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs, we should be expanding these programs.”
  4. Obamacare isn’t enough for Sanders. He wants a single-payer, i.e., government-run healthcare system.
  5. Sanders favors gun control, including a ban on assault weapons.
  6. Sanders favors a “path to citizenship” for illegals (whatever that means), but is a skeptic on both illegal and legal immigration, believing that open borders will drive down wages and constitute a threat to American jobs.
  7. Sanders is rabidly pro-abortion:
    1. He wants unrestricted late-term or partial-birth abortion, i.e., abortion in the 3rd trimester.
    2. He favors letting minors cross states to get an abortion.
    3. He supports US AID “family planning” abortion and UN funding for abortion in “Third World” countries.
    4. He voted no on a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime.
    5. He supports human embryonic stem cell research and expanding the research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
    6. Given the above (A-E), it is not surprising that Sanders is rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a perfect pro-abortion voting record.
  8. Sanders supports euthanasia— assisted suicide for terminally-ill patients. European countries have shown that physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill opens the door to horrific abuses. See “Belgium’s culture of death: Thousands are euthanized without their consent” and “Belgium considering new euthanasia law FOR KIDS“. Then there are the financial incentives for euthanasia. See “Euthanasia on the rise in American due to lucrative organ-harvesting“.

Sources: Wikipedia; On the Issues; Mother Jones; I Side With

That nurses, who are charged with caring for us when we’re the most vulnerable, have so little regard and respect for the preciousness of life as to endorse a man who is rabidly pro-abort and supports euthanasia, is a frightening thought.


Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0

Belgium's culture of death: Thousands are euthanized without their consent

Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:25:27 +0000


13 years ago, in 2002, Belgium passed a law making “physician-assisted suicide” lawful, that is, instead of saving lives, it is part of a medical doctor’s job to end a patient’s life.

Since then, the country has acquired the decidedly dubious reputation of having the most liberal euthanasia law in the world. And even though Belgians are predominantly Roman Catholic, surveys show overwhelming support for the right to die by euthanasia.

Since the law’s passage, the number of Belgians choosing euthanasia has steadily risen each year, with more than 1,800 dying this way in 2013 – that’s an average of about 5 people a day. In 2014, Belgium made headlines when it became the first country in the world to extend euthanasia to children with disabilities and terminal illnesses.

Now comes the even more horrifying news that thousands of Belgians are being euthanized against their will. 

killer doctor

Sarah Zagorski reports for LifeNews, June 12, 2015, citing the Daily Mail, that a new study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, reveals that around one in every 60 patient deaths in Belgium involved someone who didn’t want to die, i.e., they were euthanized against their will. Of those thousands of Belgians who had been murdered by their physicians:

  • Half were over the age of 80.
  • Two-thirds were not suffering from a terminal disease.

Doctors didn’t inform the patient’s family because they believed medical staff should make the decision.

The author of the study, Professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor of Hull University, said, “The decision as to which life is no longer worth living is not in the hands of the patient but in the hands of the doctor. It should also be noted that deliberately ending the lives of patients without their request is taking place in Belgium more than in all other countries that document such practices, including the Netherlands. It is worrying that some physicians take upon themselves the responsibility to deliberately shorten patients’ lives without a clear indication from the patients that this is what they would want. The Belgian population should be aware of the present situation and know that if their lives may come to the point where physicians think they are not worth living, in the absence of specific living wills advising physicians what to do then, they might be put to death.

Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coaction said: “The Belgian Socialist government is adamant that the euthanasia law needs to extend to minors and people with dementia even though there are significant examples of how the current law is being abused and the bracket creep of acceptable reasons for euthanasia continues to grow. The current practice of euthanasia in Belgium appears to have become an easy way to cover-up medical errors.”

See also “Euthanasia on the rise in America due to lucrative organ-harvesting“.


Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0 0 0